A Context Evaluation of the OISE Psychology Clinic Adult Psychotherapy Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Program evaluation is considered an important activity for psychology training clinics to conduct on an ongoing basis (American Psychological Association [APA] Education and Training Board, 1967; Stevenson & Norcross, 1987). Program evaluation can provide psychology training clinics with valuable information about the demographics of their stakeholders, the needs of those stakeholders, clinic activities and operations, and the effectiveness of those activities and operations as they relate to clinic goals (e.g., training and service delivery). To date there has not been an attempt to internally evaluate the OISE Psychology Clinic Adult Psychotherapy Service, which oversees the clinic’s training of graduate students in the treatment of adult clients. As a result, the OISE Psychology Clinic Adult Psychotherapy Service could benefit from greater program understanding and the addition of evaluation as an ongoing clinic activity. A context evaluation approach (Fitzpatrick, 2012; Greene, 2005; Stufflebeam, 1968) is used to provide programmatic knowledge and boost evaluation activity. This report uses the first stage of Stufflebeam’s (1968) Context, Input, Process, Product evaluation model to provide the service with detailed information about its stakeholders, activities, and various contextual environments (e.g., its physical environment, social and interpersonal environment, technological environment, etc.), as well the strengths and challenges of those elements. This information is intended to provide the service with greater program knowledge, and, in so doing, strengthen the service. Additionally, the use of the Context, Input, Process, Product model, which can be be iteratively implemented, is intended to provide the Adult Psychotherapy Service with the means for continuing the evaluation process and integrating evaluation into the service’s ongoing activities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".